As it seems appropriate to this thread (to me anyway), and because I don’t really feel like I got any good answer as to why it isn’t feasable, I will inject this comment again from one of the previous threads:
[quote name=“SixGun” post=“16421” timestamp=“1371649501”]
Why must DiffIncrease be equal to DiffDecrease? The issue I see is that we are having difficulty maintaining the 2.5 minute block target. What would be the negative potential if the 41% increase algorithm was separated from the algorithm that determines the diff decrease based on dropping hash power. The goal being to maintain the block time, not the profitability factor. Thinking long term, the survival of any currency depends on a consumer’s ability to use it. What I see hurting the FTC value is the long block times in period of reduced hash power.
Wouldn’t this set FTC apart from other coins (not just alts)? Thinking of a currency from a payment processing perspective, digital currencies will [i]never[/i] be able to reach parity with actual cash {not thinking of bank to bank transfers} unless there was [b][i]instantaneous[/i][/b] confirmation. Part of the reason credit cards work so well for consumers is that they [i]perceive[/i] the confirmation to be instantaneous, just like if they handed over paper bills. Let’s not get into the semantics of credit as that is whole other discussion.
My point is that consumers/users of a medium of payment don’t think about the technical aspects. If we are trying to build a long term currency/economy we must remove the variability of payment processing in some way. Since transaction confirmation depends solely on the miner nodes on the network…it follows that the time period to confirm must be as fast as possible nearly irregardless of the technical backbone (miners) of the system.
The way I understand it the positive benefit of digital currency is to move [i]large[/i] amounts of currency quickly, with moderate anonymity. Cash is king because I can go down the street and hand over a bundle to my neighbor to buy his car. The legality, and proper reporting, of that transaction isn’t and shouldn’t be up to the producer of the currency.
I’m not speaking about the diff change and it’s impact on miners necessarily, rather I am thinking about it’s affect on the viability and perceived stability/staying power of currency (FTC). What I perceive as killing the network’s strength right now is that we had a huge jump in hash power which necessarily raised the difficulty (and by proxy the profitability and market value), however once the difficulty adjusted accordingly and miners jumped off the network strength suffered.
This may be a very naive point of view from an admitted n00b, but please help me understand why this wouldn’t be beneficial for long term success. We need to think ahead to the days when FTC is humming along at 5 TH/s and suddenly a major internet backbone goes dark and we lose a significant portion of the network nodes for a short period. The network needs to be able to maintain it’s confirmation times or [i]consumers[/i] lose faith.
Again, please be kind…
[/quote]
A couple of notes:
-
as pointed out by zerodrama a little farther down on the OT, I should have said “The goal being to maintain the block time, [b][i]and subsequently[/i][/b] the profitability factor.” instead of “not”. I didn’t mean that they way I expressed it.
-
Also, after some more time mining {can’t mine currently, but hope to be back up this weekend} and more time reading these posts and learning from more knowledgeable here {I greatly respect both NutNut and Svennand}, I am definitely thinking about the difficulty and it’s affect on miners. I realize now that I was before, but didn’t really know it. :-\
Anyway, that’s my thoughts. Been lurking for a while, but this topic is dear to me as I have been fighting internally about whether to invest into more mining gear.